Aren't we capable enough now to send people to mars? What's the hold up?

Question

We've demonstrated that we can land on mars succesfully, we've been successful 4 times in a row now. Not only that, but we've learned so much about the planet; we've found water ice and learned about the soil composition adequately enough to form a basis of 'what we can do and use' , once we arrive.

Astronauts have been in space long enough now to ensure physical statue and the ability to maintain it; they've even shown the ability in the 60s to actually land on another celestial object. That was in the 60s, systems aboard a 'landing craft' I'm sure, could be more than capable enough to do the same thing even better.

So, what's the problem? Why the focus on the moon? We've been there, done that. Let's go to Mars, plant a flag, study samples first hand, return those samples, and start a base.

We CAN do it, how much more do we have to learn and prepare; don't we already have enough knowledge and know-how?

Answer 1

it appears that we're not capable of maintaining the environment long enough for people to get there and come back, never mind landing and taking off.

keep in mind, since mars is larger than the moon, taking off will require more energy.

which means more fuel and more weight and more strength, etc, etc.

however, some years ago, we tried a biosphere experiment that failed.

we seem unable to provide an extended living environment for the length of time necessary to get to mars and back.

and, you might note, we didn't even get to the cost and the benefit of the project.  in simple terms, it ain't worth it.

Answer 2

The hold up is money, not willing (qualified risk taking) astronauts, or (admittedly risky) technology.

Apparently taxpayers think horizontal lead shaped rockets are a better investment.

Answer 3

In a word:  consumables.

Trips to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s were planned only for 1-3 day sojourns on the lunar surface, and a total mission duration of less than two weeks.  This allowed engineers to cheat a little bit in providing consumables such as water, oxygen, and electricity.  They used means that were easy to engineer and relatively low in mass, but which couldn't be extended to longer missions.  The LM, for example, was battery-powered:  fine for 3 days but not suitable for a longer stay.

On the other side of the coin, the objects we've sent to Mars are engineering simpletons compared to what it would take to support a human crew.  Humans require food and oxygen, and can survive only within a narrow range of temperatures.  None of THAT has yet been sent to Mars.

Improving mission duration techniques (i.e., how long can we go without catastrophic failure or the need for resupply) is one of those things the ISS is good for.  Returning to the Moon -- this time for longer than 3 days at a time -- gives us a nearby place (i.e., comparatively easy for the next generation of rockets to get to) to practice and test how we're going to keep crews alive in space and on planetary surfaces for months on end without assistance.  We don't know how to do that yet.

Answer 4

Money.  Do you think spacecraft are free?  And do you think you can just go buy one?  The lunar program involved hundreds of thousands of people.  Scientists, skilled workers..  This infrastructure no longer exists.  We no longer have the capability to build the Saturn V rocket.  The machinery for that was allowed to rust and was sold for scrap.  An entirely new infrastructure would have to be assembled.  And one capable of a Martian trip.  This is a far greater endeavor.  The moon was a hop, skip, and a jump.  This requires major funding.  Funding requires political will.  During the space race, beating the Russians could energize the American people to pay for a lunar program.  Today that impetus is lost.  Today we are nearly bankrupt.  We cannot afford such a useless adventure.  What could we possibly get back for investing perhaps 100 billion dollars?  Some rocks?  We have lots of rocks.  

   Returning to the useless moon or going to an equally useless and more distant Mars is sheer folly.  The American public, which lost interest in the Moon in the middle of Apollo, would never pay for such idiocy.  Perhaps the leaders of China will suddenly become stupid and decide that such a trip would impress people.  Forget Mars.  We aren't going.  

Answer 5

There are a number of reasons why we don't go to Mars.

1. Too darned expensive.

2. Nothing that we can do with a manned mission that we can't do with robots.

3. Mars is a very inhospitable place to maintain a base.

4. We already did the flag planting deal on the moon. (Been there done that)

5. Nothing to be gained.

Answer 6

What is more probable?

We went to the moon with less computer power than a modern digital watch, and we're going back again. Then to Mars. Then off to Zeta Reticuli!

or

Your government has sold you out to the coming 4th Reich known as the New World Order that will soon try to force these on you:

http://www.verichipcorp.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gXGTcd6...

Answer 7

The short answer is yes, but not at a cost we are willing to pay. Despite our rapid progression in aerospace technology the most vital of all has progressed the least, Propulsion. While chemical rocket technology has progressed in many ways it simply cannot achieve the kind of efficiency needed to significantly reduce the cost of access into space while at the same time increase our load capacity. This is why we do not have single stage to orbit capability yet.